New article on Watchdog: Fields of View comparison at DVinfo.net

Chris Hurd · October 24th, 2004, 10:21 PM

Just finished up my XL2 Fields of View Comparison. If you've ever wondered how the XL lenses differ from 35mm still photo lenses using the EF adapter, then this is for you.

Nico van Tonder · October 24th, 2004, 11:02 PM

Chris,

Your images looks very sharply defined even as stills.

As I am a complete newcomer to video and specially the XL2 some concepts about the configuration of the camcorder is a complete mistery to me. The other problem is that English is not my mother tongue and that complicates the matter. Knee, black, etc., etc., it baffles my mind.

Would you mind to reveal your basic settings you configured your camcorder with as well as the frame rate you use.

My tests reveals a almost complete out of focus footage. I am using the normal 20X lens and I am using 50i (PAL) framerate. I am sure something must be wrong.

Nico van Tonder · October 24th, 2004, 11:06 PM

I would also like to add that I am viewing the tests on my laptop (a Compaq Evo N800w, 32bit screen colours, 1600x1200px)

Chris Hurd · October 24th, 2004, 11:24 PM

Nico,

Everything was shot in the "A" (auto) mode at 30p. Everything was at the default setting, including the custom presets menu. The smart-resize function I used in Paint Shop Pro helps to sharpen those images as they're made smaller. That really wasn't the point though -- the point of the article is the field of view of a particular lens.

Nico van Tonder · October 25th, 2004, 12:13 AM

Chris,

Thanks for your reply.

I can assure you that shooting home movies with a dinky toy whatsename camcorder and then move on to the XL2 is quite an experience.

There's a steep learning curve ahead of me. I increased the sharpness of the XL2 and will do some tests today.

That could be one reason for the softness of the images - the other one could be a Kenko UV filter I installed on the lens. I removed that.

Regards

Greg Boston · October 25th, 2004, 04:38 AM

Hi Chris,

You stated that using the 20x auto lense at full telephoto was with f1.6. Unless I am missing something, I can't get the lense to stay at f1.6 in full telephoto. I presume due to the design of the internal elements. The same is true of the 16x auto on my XL-1.

So, is that your tractor?

regards,

=gb=

Rob Lohman · October 25th, 2004, 04:40 AM

Thanks for that test Chris! Awesome to see.

Ralph Roberts · October 25th, 2004, 06:15 AM

Great test and very informative, Chris... thanks!

Also nice tractor. ;-) ... When I was a kid growing up on the farm, we had a Ferguson 20... just a slightly later model that the one you show, but also a nice solid machine.

--Ralph

Chris Hurd · October 25th, 2004, 06:57 AM

Greg, that f/stop was an error on the page and I've corrected it to read f/3.5. Thanks for pointing that out.

Yi Fong Yu · October 25th, 2004, 10:18 AM

chris... that was kewl. thx for posting that page up quickly. i think that will resolve a lot of the "which lens should i use" threads =). the 3x certainly is VERY wide. also the variety of the lenses the XL2 can use is very revealing.

Sebastian Jacome · October 25th, 2004, 12:16 PM

awsome info, there is so much you can say with words. This helped me see what I have to get next, Thanks.

Alexis Vazquez · October 25th, 2004, 10:04 PM

Chris, Fantastic comparison.
The first image (4:3 ) of 3x wide angle has more brilliant colors, is this just a nature thing (the sun) or did any color correction?

Alexis

Chris Hurd · October 25th, 2004, 10:09 PM

I just did that one first. As I pointed out, those frames were shot as the sun was going down so the light was changing rapidly.

Don Williamson · October 26th, 2004, 10:30 AM

Dear Chris,

Thanks so much for your fields of view comparison. Very helpful. I have a question. Using the 3x lens with the XL2, how much of an improvement in sharpness of image do you observe over the 3x on the XL1/S? I am thinking of getting the XL2 body kit to use with my XL1 lenses, including the 3x. The only problem I've had with the 3x on my XL1 has been its softness on wider shots. If 3x images in the 16:9 widescreen mode are considerably sharper with the XL2 that is very good news. What is your experience in this regard?

Gratefully, Don Williamson

Chris Hurd · October 26th, 2004, 11:23 AM

Hi Don,

In my experience, softness in wide shots is a result of the pixel averaging phenomenon and really has nothing to do with the lens itself. Basically, you have 720 pixels of width to make up an image. In medium to close-up shots this is perfectly adequate. In long shots showing a wide panorama, you still have only 720 pixels with which to assemble all that detail. So of course, long wide shots appear somewhat softer than close-up shots because the same 720 pixels must now build up a much larger area which contains a lot more visual data. Those pixels can only go so far in presenting all of the detail that makes up all that exists within that larger field of view. I can use DV to portray a scene in a room quite well with plenty of sharpness. But I can't make it look as sharp when the camera is pointing at an expansive panorama of, say, a mountain range. And especially not with a wide-angle lens -- but more about that in a bit.

Now in 16:9 mode with the XL2, all it means is that the field of view is a bit wider than 4:3. So yes you have more pixels for width. But they must cover a wider area anyway. So there's no advantage in sharpness there. You're simply getting a wider image than before (if you had more pixels but didn't increase the image width, then you'd see a sharper picture). The pixel averaging phenomenon doesn't go away in native 16:9, but it doesn't get any worse either. It's a wider image but you have more pixels to use in order to make up for that extra width in the image.

This effect is even more prounced in the 3x Wide Angle lens because... well, it's *all* wide angle throughout the zoom range. So therefore pixel averaging is even more pronounced especially in a long shot. Use that lens in a close-up situation and you won't see any softness. But in long shots of course it's always affected by pixel averaging. This is a limitation of the format, not the lens. But a wide-angle lens just brings it out more and makes pixel averaging more obvious.

Don't go by the sharpness of those frames on that page -- as I pointed out above, there is some sharpness gained by the smart-resize function I used when I resampled those images in Paint Shop Pro. Hope this helps,

October 24th, 2004, 10:21 PM	#1
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	New article on Watchdog: Fields of View comparison Just finished up my XL2 Fields of View Comparison. If you've ever wondered how the XL lenses differ from 35mm still photo lenses using the EF adapter, then this is for you. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 24th, 2004, 11:02 PM	#2
Nico van Tonder Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Pretoria, South Africa Posts: 33	XL2 Images Chris, Your images looks very sharply defined even as stills. As I am a complete newcomer to video and specially the XL2 some concepts about the configuration of the camcorder is a complete mistery to me. The other problem is that English is not my mother tongue and that complicates the matter. Knee, black, etc., etc., it baffles my mind. Would you mind to reveal your basic settings you configured your camcorder with as well as the frame rate you use. My tests reveals a almost complete out of focus footage. I am using the normal 20X lens and I am using 50i (PAL) framerate. I am sure something must be wrong. __________________ Nico

October 24th, 2004, 11:06 PM	#3
Nico van Tonder Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Pretoria, South Africa Posts: 33	I would also like to add that I am viewing the tests on my laptop (a Compaq Evo N800w, 32bit screen colours, 1600x1200px) __________________ Nico

October 24th, 2004, 11:24 PM	#4
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Nico, Everything was shot in the "A" (auto) mode at 30p. Everything was at the default setting, including the custom presets menu. The smart-resize function I used in Paint Shop Pro helps to sharpen those images as they're made smaller. That really wasn't the point though -- the point of the article is the field of view of a particular lens. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 25th, 2004, 12:13 AM	#5
Nico van Tonder Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Pretoria, South Africa Posts: 33	Chris, Thanks for your reply. I can assure you that shooting home movies with a dinky toy whatsename camcorder and then move on to the XL2 is quite an experience. There's a steep learning curve ahead of me. I increased the sharpness of the XL2 and will do some tests today. That could be one reason for the softness of the images - the other one could be a Kenko UV filter I installed on the lens. I removed that. Regards __________________ Nico

October 25th, 2004, 04:38 AM	#6
Greg Boston Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DFW area, TX Posts: 6,117 Images: 1	Hi Chris, You stated that using the 20x auto lense at full telephoto was with f1.6. Unless I am missing something, I can't get the lense to stay at f1.6 in full telephoto. I presume due to the design of the internal elements. The same is true of the 16x auto on my XL-1. So, is that your tractor? regards, =gb=

October 25th, 2004, 04:40 AM	#7
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Thanks for that test Chris! Awesome to see. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 25th, 2004, 06:15 AM	#8
Ralph Roberts Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Alexander, NC Posts: 188	Great test and very informative, Chris... thanks! Also nice tractor. ;-) ... When I was a kid growing up on the farm, we had a Ferguson 20... just a slightly later model that the one you show, but also a nice solid machine. --Ralph __________________ --Ralph Roberts, CEO 1VIDeo / aBOOKS / Creativity, Inc.

October 25th, 2004, 06:57 AM	#9
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Greg, that f/stop was an error on the page and I've corrected it to read f/3.5. Thanks for pointing that out. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 25th, 2004, 10:18 AM	#10
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	chris... that was kewl. thx for posting that page up quickly. i think that will resolve a lot of the "which lens should i use" threads =). the 3x certainly is VERY wide. also the variety of the lenses the XL2 can use is very revealing. __________________ bow wow wow

October 25th, 2004, 12:16 PM	#11
Sebastian Jacome Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Quito - Ecuador Posts: 28	awsome info, there is so much you can say with words. This helped me see what I have to get next, Thanks.

October 25th, 2004, 10:04 PM	#12
Alexis Vazquez Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: USA Posts: 188	Chris, Fantastic comparison. The first image (4:3 ) of 3x wide angle has more brilliant colors, is this just a nature thing (the sun) or did any color correction? Alexis

October 25th, 2004, 10:09 PM	#13
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	I just did that one first. As I pointed out, those frames were shot as the sun was going down so the light was changing rapidly. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 26th, 2004, 10:30 AM	#14
Don Williamson Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Ashburn, VA Posts: 42	Dear Chris, Thanks so much for your fields of view comparison. Very helpful. I have a question. Using the 3x lens with the XL2, how much of an improvement in sharpness of image do you observe over the 3x on the XL1/S? I am thinking of getting the XL2 body kit to use with my XL1 lenses, including the 3x. The only problem I've had with the 3x on my XL1 has been its softness on wider shots. If 3x images in the 16:9 widescreen mode are considerably sharper with the XL2 that is very good news. What is your experience in this regard? Gratefully, Don Williamson __________________ Don Williamson

October 26th, 2004, 11:23 AM	#15
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Hi Don, In my experience, softness in wide shots is a result of the pixel averaging phenomenon and really has nothing to do with the lens itself. Basically, you have 720 pixels of width to make up an image. In medium to close-up shots this is perfectly adequate. In long shots showing a wide panorama, you still have only 720 pixels with which to assemble all that detail. So of course, long wide shots appear somewhat softer than close-up shots because the same 720 pixels must now build up a much larger area which contains a lot more visual data. Those pixels can only go so far in presenting all of the detail that makes up all that exists within that larger field of view. I can use DV to portray a scene in a room quite well with plenty of sharpness. But I can't make it look as sharp when the camera is pointing at an expansive panorama of, say, a mountain range. And especially not with a wide-angle lens -- but more about that in a bit. Now in 16:9 mode with the XL2, all it means is that the field of view is a bit wider than 4:3. So yes you have more pixels for width. But they must cover a wider area anyway. So there's no advantage in sharpness there. You're simply getting a wider image than before (if you had more pixels but didn't increase the image width, then you'd see a sharper picture). The pixel averaging phenomenon doesn't go away in native 16:9, but it doesn't get any worse either. It's a wider image but you have more pixels to use in order to make up for that extra width in the image. This effect is even more prounced in the 3x Wide Angle lens because... well, it's all wide angle throughout the zoom range. So therefore pixel averaging is even more pronounced especially in a long shot. Use that lens in a close-up situation and you won't see any softness. But in long shots of course it's always affected by pixel averaging. This is a limitation of the format, not the lens. But a wide-angle lens just brings it out more and makes pixel averaging more obvious. Don't go by the sharpness of those frames on that page -- as I pointed out above, there is some sharpness gained by the smart-resize function I used when I resampled those images in Paint Shop Pro. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!